Guido T v Lloyds TSB ***DEFENCE STRUCK OUT - WON****

[GaryH]

My thread is awfully quiet, feel a bit lonely .

 

We're here Guido!

 

Your claim is coming along nicely and you've clearly done your homework, which is great. Perhaps people have'nt posted becouse they think you're doing fine as it is? Anyway, we're here if you need us.

 

Good luck!

[GaryH]

Hi Guido T,

 

Same old defence as usual, then. No need to reply to it. I suppose you could if you wanted to, but a replying to a defence is not usual practice in small claims cases.

 

Have you read about the new stratagy for the AQ? Heres the thread, its definately worth doing - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html

[GaryH]

The bank should not be underestimated, there are some very big thinkers within it. However, it is difficult to predict what their change of strategy will be. More than ever now we need to ensure that we pursing our claims properly, eventually it is inevitable that someone's claim will be properly defended.

Could'nt agree more.

 

The way I see it, they've got two choices. They will either start paying up in the early stages and perhaps close peoples accounts as Alliance and Leicester do, or they'll come out fighting and pick off perhaps what they perceive to be the weaker or ill-prepared claims. Even if they defended only 10% of them - assuming they won most of those - this would give them back some credibility and give their publicity machine's something to work on. Of course if they lost most of them then it could mean disaster for them.

 

I think we should now be using the new AQ strategy as standard practice. If they do choose to start defending we need to make it as uncomfortable for them as possible.

 

This is obviously just my humble - and speculative - opinion.

Does anyone have any views on the matter and whether we should included something in our AQ regarding Kazzaw's order?

As I understand it, there is something being worked on in this regard. Its a fine line to tread though - that order was not what you'd call ordinary and some judges might not see it the way that the one from Lincoln did. Anything that does happen is only likely to be published on the site after Kazzaw's case has been settled though in any case.

[GaryH]

I am not a lawyer, but I draft and review documents for legal proceedings relating to construction disputes.

That must be quite relevant to the topics on this board then. I bet the issues of penalty clauses come up quite often in construction disputes.

[GaryH]

Yep, they're pretty much an extension of LTSB's collections department. They aren't even listed in directory enquiries, plus Breadline did a land registry search a while ago and Lloyds own their site!

[GaryH]

Every claim so far in which the draft directions have been proposed they have been ordered, so yes, I think you could call that success! See this page of the new strategy thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires-8.html#post481560

[GaryH]

Day off!!?? Pah!

 

(mutter...mutter......)

 

 

[GaryH]

Are you confident of your arguements with regards to section 32 and contractual interest? Clearly if not then you should accept the initial offer.

 

If you are and wish to proceed, you should write to SC&M and attempt to narrow the issues, as directed by the order. Here's a letter by BF - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/3122-nationwide-first-lloyds-last-3.html#post214506 which will give you a good starting point. Also make reference to section 32 of the LA and the contractual interest, briefly outlining your arguements and your confidence in those arguements.

 

Obviously its highly likely that they'll completely ignore your letter, which will give your request for the special directions to be ordered at the end of the stay even more weight.

 

Once the stay has expired, send this with a copy of the letter you've already sent to SC&M - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires-12.html#post524360

[GaryH]

Fine. The number of settled claims has increased significantly now though, here's the new list - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/64871-spreadsheet-claims.html, which come to think of it you may want to attach.

[GaryH]

See Kazzaw's thread - the Lincoln 'abuse' orders.

[GaryH]

I've PM'd you.

[GaryH]

Fantastic! Well done mate!!!

 

Which court is it BTW?

[GaryH]

Has anyone included the very interesting points you make in "aq2" within "aq1" (the new strategy) aswell?? Would it be worth considering??

Yes, no reason why not, although as GT said it is especially effective after they've requested a stay, had it granted, then ignored all contact - becouse the judge has a clear example of an abuse of process in the present case as well as his knowledge of other cases.

 

Theres more information on it up in the "AQ info" sticky.

 

I haven't put it on the "new strategy for AQ" thread mainly becouse I don't want to complicate matters, and, becouse it is quite aggressive - however if its used a few times with a good success rate then I'll certainly reconsider.

[GaryH]

Hi GT,

 

Got your e-mail, although I haven't had a proper read as yet - will do tomorrow. Looks excellent though, particularly section 20 which is interesting.

 

Good job.

[GaryH]

I'd hand in a letter such as this - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/57708-draft-order-allocation-questionnaires.html#post757475, alongside the request for judgement form.

[GaryH]

I've always advised people to use either of the judgement request forms, with no problems as yet.

[GaryH]

Watford seem to be slow to act when the disclosure orders are defaulted on. Daisy Bumbleroot had the same.

[GaryH]

Very annoying, and also very disappointing that the judge hasn't kept to the terms of his own order - but at least you know they can only delay the inevitable for so long.

[GaryH]

Oh yes, sorry!

 

I've added some stuff to the application for costs thread -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/65921-application-costs-updated.html

[GaryH]

Excellent news!!!! What a fantastic result - particularly in light of *recent events*!! Very well done.

 

May I change your title to *WON*, or would that be somewhat premature?

[GaryH]

.......... and GaryH who probably lurking around somewhere.

I'm ALWAYS lurking!! Hahahahahah.........:o

 

I just cannot get a legible print out of this, I think because of the logo, can anyone help?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....38&Item id=82

Worked ok for me - a bit faint cos of the dot matrix thingy, but it prints alright.

 

Congrats again by the way - a sweet victory and richly deserved.

[GaryH]

Well done GuidoT, you deserve it after all the help you give others, me included.

 

Wilks77

Absolutely. I'll second that!

[GaryH]

I never helped you with your claims Gary .

Not helped me? Are you kidding?! Who else would've corrected my atrocious Hone-esqe spelling and grammer!

[GaryH]

Use the new POC from the templates library. There is one specific to Lloyds.